These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Amarr

First post First post First post
Author
Credacom
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#541 - 2013-04-09 23:37:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Credacom
Poor apoc....should have had better cap bump
Meduza13
Silver Octopus
Infernal Octopus
#542 - 2013-04-10 00:18:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Meduza13
SMT008 wrote:
Lillith Sakata wrote:

BECAUSE WE"RE AMARRIANS. We don't need no stupid Caldari idiocy. Give me lasers, a good brick to stick em on, and a dirty Minmater slave to shoot at.

Amarr Victor.


It's called Abaddon.



and thats why leave the damn abaddon alone!
By the way is anyone from CCP actually reads it? I went through tons of pages and I see no CCP answer at all?
Balor Haliquin
White Wolf Dragoons
#543 - 2013-04-10 00:42:40 UTC
Okay so I hate to be that guy but the Abaddon changes are totally unnecessary. Reducing the ships resistances by 1% does not make any sense to me at all. I'm not sure what the intention is of this, but it brakes several design rules in eve. I would like a much better explanation about what this change is needed other then "Because of a long complex reason". This is eve for god sake, we are the masters of the overly complex and the unnecessarily in depth.

If the point of the Abaddon is to be wall of hit points the fits a great set of guns then the current version of it is fine. And to be honest the only reason it is so popular as a battleship right not is because it fits the bill very well for it very specific role. Its versatility in fights can easily be negated by range, speed, and even raw damage. By reducing its resistances all you do is relegate the ship to the side lines. Remember the the Abaddon does not have speed, or a low signature to fall back on. All it has is an armored wall. Doing anything to reduce that kills the effectiveness of the ship as a whole.

Don't change the Abaddon, its fine it works, and honestly its one of the few battleships in eve then genuinely does not need the help of a re polish.
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#544 - 2013-04-10 01:39:28 UTC
Well

Does abaddon actually need a nerf?
I did not see any large scale abaddon fleet flying around and killing things, for at least several months, but Rokhs and Mealstroms are frequently used.

For me, any race should have at least one battle ship for PVE or mission running for new players.
Apocalypse was the choice but now it is not cap stable with all lvl 4 skills and 1 sansha rep.
(And you know one sansha rep is not that tanky)
or you have to lose a bit tank or a bit dps or some range/tracking. Or maybe use some expensive modules or rigs or implants.
Maybe you are thinking about sth like reduction in cap consumption of lazers? I don't know.
but if you are doing so, you'll have to change all frigs, crusers, and bcs.
for example, harbinger to 10% damage and 7.5% tracking, maybe.

Armageddon is a interesting change.
But why?
Personally I precieve amarr ship as:
Havily tanked
Laser focused
Drones supported.
And the old geddon perfectly fit that discription.
The new one is just sth like Domigeddon or Armaphoon accoring to the weapon used.


Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#545 - 2013-04-10 01:49:16 UTC
Balor Haliquin wrote:
Okay so I hate to be that guy but the Abaddon changes are totally unnecessary. Reducing the ships resistances by 1% does not make any sense to me at all. I'm not sure what the intention is of this, but it brakes several design rules in eve. I would like a much better explanation about what this change is needed other then "Because of a long complex reason". This is eve for god sake, we are the masters of the overly complex and the unnecessarily in depth.

If the point of the Abaddon is to be wall of hit points the fits a great set of guns then the current version of it is fine. And to be honest the only reason it is so popular as a battleship right not is because it fits the bill very well for it very specific role. Its versatility in fights can easily be negated by range, speed, and even raw damage. By reducing its resistances all you do is relegate the ship to the side lines. Remember the the Abaddon does not have speed, or a low signature to fall back on. All it has is an armored wall. Doing anything to reduce that kills the effectiveness of the ship as a whole.

Don't change the Abaddon, its fine it works, and honestly its one of the few battleships in eve then genuinely does not need the help of a re polish.

You know, as much as I have so far avoided discussing the Abaddon changes... ^^^^ This.
Atomic Option
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#546 - 2013-04-10 03:21:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Atomic Option
After sleeping on it, the simplest statement of the problem with the Apoc change is that:
the new bonus to tracking doesn't synergize well with the optimal bonus.

When do you most need optimal? When you're far away.
When do you most need tracking? When you're closer to an orbiting target.

The cap bonus can synergize with any fit that uses lasers, but the tracking bonus isn't useful in as many situations. If you want to move away from cap bonuses, find something else that synergizes with optimal.

Some alternatives might include damage/level so tachyons at range become as good as pulses have been (since long range pulses are now out and the geddon no longer does high laser dps). A tracking disruption bonus would synergize well for small pvp although in pve it's still not useful. Tracking instead of cap is just a straight nerf to a ship that's not OP.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#547 - 2013-04-10 03:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
I just want to say this:

Abaddon - Combat
Apocalypse - Attack
Armageddon - Disruption via Neut/Nos.

However, please actually call the Armageddon a "Disruption" battleship since that's basically what you've got here.

For the rest of you who are up at arms about the change to the Geddon, you knew there was a new Amarr doctrine coming when the Arbitrator got rebalanced and the Dragoon was added. The Prophecy change should have confirmed it in your minds that something would happen to one of the Amarr battleships. How is this a surprise? It's not a bad change though, out of all the amarr ships to be turned into "the weird one", the Armageddon is probably the most appropriate. Drones and missiles and neuting would have looked very strange on the iconic laser death machine that is the Apoc and no dimension exists where converting the Abaddon to that role is actually a legitimate idea.

CCP Rise: You succeeded in justifiably enraging basically the entirety of the Minmatar and Gallente communities (I haven't been back to the Caldari thread yet) but managed to pull it out of the fire. For the Amarr battleships though, these changes look pretty solid. Admittedly I'm not sure how that reduced cap on the Apoc will play out. Just remember to consider each race's identity first (like how Amarr have thick armor that suggests buffer tanking and strong capacitors for those cap-sucking lasers) and then go about your tiericide with that sort of guiding principle in mind.

EDIT: @ Poster above me - Consider a world where tachyons now have tracking to comfortably hit something. A world where pulses have the optimal to hit for full damage. A world where you can fit either pulses or beams and still take good advantage of your ship bonuses. Besides, with the capacitor on the Apoc dropping, would you really want a ROF bonus?
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#548 - 2013-04-10 03:31:26 UTC
So with these changes. Not only will Amarr be the only race that can't use its highest tier tech 2 guns and remain cap stable.

None of these ships can even fit a rack of Tachyons. Which only the Scorpion shares with us, not being able to fit T2 torps.

All other T1 BS can fit the highest tier guns and remain cap stable with the basic high damage ammo, AM, EMP. without any other fittings.

MF makes all the Amarr BS unstable. And we have to use a slot to fix our power grid, and another slot to be able to keep firing.

This is with all level 5 skills btw. Which you know all those new Amarr players get immediately...Roll

The cap instability needs to change at the BS level, either the ammo, guns or hulls. Hopefully without giving us that wasted cap use bonus back.

The powergrid use of the Turrets probably need to be reworked. With all the collective changes to all weapons systems Tachs are not so good that they shouldn't be able to be fit in this age of EVE. ( the only T1 non faction hull that can fit them and other modules, is the Oracle! So a BC can use BS guns but the BS can't fit them?!?!?! )

Eagerly awaiting a constructive reply to this thread by CCP.
Asmodai Xodai
#549 - 2013-04-10 03:34:41 UTC
Quote:
One of the excellent mechanics of EVE is that larger ships have damage penalties against smaller ships, dependent on target speed and target signature radius. With energy neutralizers the effect is quite the opposite - not only are absolute neutralization effects the same regardless of target ship, neuts are inordinately effective against targets smaller than yourself.


While I respect your point of view, I have a somewhat different opinion on this than you, and possibly many others.

I was always bothered by strategy games where the player wasn't rewarded for 'teching up.' I would always calculate out the killing efficiency of units, and to my dismay, sometimes game balancers made it so that I was punished for teching up instead of rewarded.

As applied to Eve specifically, I think the balancers may have tilted things too much towards protecting the likes of frigates and cruisers from battleships. I think a battleship *should* be able to swat a frigate or cruiser pretty much as you could swat a fly.

Now, that's not to say that there might not be a penalty or cost for a battleship to attack and destroy a frigate. But I'm not sure the cost should be direct nerfs such as all these targeting and tracking penalties etc. For instance, consider this. What would be the 'overkill cost' for a battleship to blow a frigate out of the sky? I'd say rather high, especially if there are other targets out there where dps could be more efficiently applied (enemy battleships). Another thing is that frigates are almost 'free' when compared to battleships. This amounts to another penalty that battleships incur when attacking frigates - they are essentially wasting time and dps shooting at something that is almost 'free' in cost. There is also a 'swarm' disadvantage. Take any standard battleship, and put it up against it's cost in small frigates. Every time the battleship destroys a frigate, the total dps of the swarm only goes down by a small amount, and it has to kill each and every one. I haven't performed the experiment, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if a battleship's cost in frigates easily takes down the battleship.

The bottom line here is, I consider a BS being able to easily neut out a frigate to be just fine, and this should be 'working as intended.' I also encourage CCP to focus less on artificial nerfs such as tracking and target size, and just let battleships be battleships in all their splendor and glory, and let frigates be frigates.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#550 - 2013-04-10 03:49:51 UTC
Just FYI - the proposed Geddon now has a split weapon bonus (drones and neuts). I don't have a problem with this change, per se (although players who fly the Geddon more frequently might), but I believe that this is inconsistent when you state that your overall tiericide plan includes removing all split weapon bonuses on T1 battleships.

And, if you try to tell me that neuts are not weapons, I'm just going to laugh at you.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#551 - 2013-04-10 03:56:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Neuts are not weapons unless you consider ECM modules, TDs, Sensor Dampeners, Scrams and Webs to be weapons as well.

If you do consider those to be weapons, then I'm just not sure what to say. Weapons are defined as something that directly damages the target. That means reducing HP. Neuts don't do that, they simply disable the tank which then allows your weapons to more effectively reduce HP.

Nobody in EVE was ever killed by just a neut, just a TD, just an ECM module. There was always a turret or launcher or drone involved.
FlamingManiac
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#552 - 2013-04-10 04:04:50 UTC
Asmodai Xodai wrote:
Quote:
One of the excellent mechanics of EVE is that larger ships have damage penalties against smaller ships, dependent on target speed and target signature radius. With energy neutralizers the effect is quite the opposite - not only are absolute neutralization effects the same regardless of target ship, neuts are inordinately effective against targets smaller than yourself.


While I respect your point of view, I have a somewhat different opinion on this than you, and possibly many others.

I was always bothered by strategy games where the player wasn't rewarded for 'teching up.' I would always calculate out the killing efficiency of units, and to my dismay, sometimes game balancers made it so that I was punished for teching up instead of rewarded.

As applied to Eve specifically, I think the balancers may have tilted things too much towards protecting the likes of frigates and cruisers from battleships. I think a battleship *should* be able to swat a frigate or cruiser pretty much as you could swat a fly.

Now, that's not to say that there might not be a penalty or cost for a battleship to attack and destroy a frigate. But I'm not sure the cost should be direct nerfs such as all these targeting and tracking penalties etc. For instance, consider this. What would be the 'overkill cost' for a battleship to blow a frigate out of the sky? I'd say rather high, especially if there are other targets out there where dps could be more efficiently applied (enemy battleships). Another thing is that frigates are almost 'free' when compared to battleships. This amounts to another penalty that battleships incur when attacking frigates - they are essentially wasting time and dps shooting at something that is almost 'free' in cost. There is also a 'swarm' disadvantage. Take any standard battleship, and put it up against it's cost in small frigates. Every time the battleship destroys a frigate, the total dps of the swarm only goes down by a small amount, and it has to kill each and every one. I haven't performed the experiment, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if a battleship's cost in frigates easily takes down the battleship.

The bottom line here is, I consider a BS being able to easily neut out a frigate to be just fine, and this should be 'working as intended.' I also encourage CCP to focus less on artificial nerfs such as tracking and target size, and just let battleships be battleships in all their splendor and glory, and let frigates be frigates.


Did you read my proposed change?

It would actually be easier for battleships to "swat frigates" at the same ranges they currently do now, only with a small energy neutralizer instead of a heavy energy neutralizer. This means the activation cost of the small neut is trivial, and the fitting requirements are greatly reduced if your goal is to keep frigates off of your back. You actually do this much better, with a reduced cycle time making things much harder on the frigate to counter. The total neut amount is lower, but it is still a brutal attack because it is on the same order of magnitude as the frigate's ship.

This all comes at the expense of being explicitly forced to fit towards the goal of neuting frigates, rather than fitting a heavy neut which should be intended to be used against targets closer to your own size. You make these exact same choices when choosing which of the traditional weapon systems to fit - fitting guns that work on roughly your own size and up, or purposefully under-sizing your guns for reduced total damage output but higher effective damage output against smaller targets.

I dare to say the primary goal of heavy neuts is to deal massive neuting power to slow ships with large capacitor reservoirs, and with no reduction in neut power it should still be able to perform this role quite effectively. At the same time it gives pilots of all ship sizes a reason to fit their neut towards their intended purpose, not to mindlessly slap on the biggest neut they can get the grid for.
Vodiann
Sodium Chloride Mining Institute
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#553 - 2013-04-10 04:12:43 UTC
Look. Amarr are LASERs....I agree with the considering "throwing out the window" however think about this please.

What about tracking disruption? What about the 1 weapon focus per ship. What you have mentioned doing to the Armageddon is making it a drone boat, missile launching, neut ship.

The dragoon is not by any means justification to remove lasers from more amarr ships to somehow merge them into the other races weapon types..... make a 4th battleship if you want to do that Roll

My suggestion: treat the geddon more like the scorpion by giving it some sort of ewar, keeping drone bay size, but drawing a line and not giving it drone damage boosts.

If you like to kill two birds with one stone and make the battleship class more distinct then maybe give it bonus to neuting drones and tracking disruptor drones, with hp but no drone damage increase. Claim that given that the ship size, new technology was able to be installed specialized toward enhancing other amarr technology toward tactical drone functions. This can be calculated to having the desired ewar power AND give it 7 highs and 7 turret 5 missiles seeing how this shouldn't overpower its damage or purpose.

With that purpose in mind similar respect can be given to the typhoon,domi, scorp, and geddon as a 'Support Battleship'. It is not a tier but a role.

And who says a role bonus should be viewed in %'s? Why not say it can fit 1 heavy nuet at a massively reduced powergrid and cpu cost ( free=forcing it vs worrying if you overlooked an exploitation...) whilst providing that extended range you mentioned. I could work out my analysis between drone/armor vs missile/shield, which i know is part of the struggle here, but Ive got to go. So please less cookie cutter development and more respect toward my damn lasers. Twisted

I

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#554 - 2013-04-10 04:21:31 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
And, if you try to tell me that neuts are not weapons, I'm just going to laugh at you.

Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Neuts are not weapons...

lol :)
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#555 - 2013-04-10 04:33:12 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Neuts are not weapons unless you consider ECM modules, TDs, Sensor Dampeners, Scrams and Webs to be weapons as well.

If you do consider those to be weapons, then I'm just not sure what to say. Weapons are defined as something that directly damages the target. That means reducing HP. Neuts don't do that, they simply disable the tank which then allows your weapons to more effectively reduce HP.

Nobody in EVE was ever killed by just a neut, just a TD, just an ECM module. There was always a turret or launcher or drone involved.

It takes a highslot, its used in pvp, its a weapon. midslot modules arent weapons, theya re tools, because you can CHOOSe to fit them without engatively impacting your ability to damage the enemy, a neut is a weapon because it trades your EHP damage to the enemy for capacitor damage.

neuts are weapons, arguing otherwise is ignorant.

and because i will continue to whine: give me back the old geddon, to the EXACT, if you want a neut/drone/missile/lolz ship for amarr, give us a new hull, i refuse to fly an abaddon for BS pvp which is basically what these changes are telling me ill have to do. and before anyone says "hurr durr you can still fit turrets/launchers on it", i have never seen an UNBONUSED ship with laser or hell, even missiles (battlehsip level missiles being crap right nwo anyways) ever put out a meaningful amount of DPS.
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#556 - 2013-04-10 04:41:04 UTC
I wrote a big long post, but it disappeared on me. Oh well. Here goes attempt number two:

Abaddon: Changes make sense. -1% armor seems...strange, but simply because I'm used to multiples of 2.5.

Apocalpyse: I really hope you're doing a laser re-balancing. Like that's the only explanation I can infer from these changes. With the Abaddon having the same cap as always, and the armageddon now a drone/neut boat, the only boat left for a laser based level 4 mission runner is...not the apoc.

I used E-uni mission fits, since E-uni is designed to bring new blood into EVE, and since that's primarily where the issues are with the new apoc. Currently, with all 5 skills, a pulse apoc can dual rep just fine, with "only" 3 rigs and 4 medium slots dedicated to capacitor, and will in fact be 40~% cap stable.

Without the cap bonus, it drops to 5 minutes.

And this is with all 5 skills, and the beam fit is even worse, only dedicating 5 slots to capacitor, (3 rig +2 medium) single repping, and only having 3 min of capacitor available.

But all this is fixed if laser cap use is rebalanced. Just tell me it's going to be rebalanced. Amarr lasers don't need a huge buff, but take away the cap bonuses and the ships won't be usable for PvE. I'm not a PvP expert so I'll let others hash out what's great about this, but the amarr won't have a usable ship for missions with this current iteration of changes. So, just put my heart to rest and let me know if lasers are being rebalanced when BS's are. Otherwise, please reconsider. At some point, all the money comes from ratting or mining, after all. (Well and PI, and moons, but that doesn't help my case, now does it?)

Armageddon: I've already said I'm not a PvP expert, but the neut bonus seems...out of character. With a split weapon system, the armageddon feels like a new typhoon, only armor tanked. Its 5-5, so split weapon systems. And with the way things are now, those 5 slots will never be used for laser in any fleet doctrine, or EFT scenario. Blasters? Sure. Artillery? Sure. Rails? Sure. Missiles? Maybe, but probably not since this seems to be a PvP boat, but lasers, PvP or PvE? Hell no.

Looking at the Armageddon, I just can't help but feel it's flexible in all the wrong ways. The new arby and prophecy are fine, so I can't attribute it's wrongness to split weapon systems, so I place the blame on the neut bonus. It gives it a lack of definition. Drones secondary as a secondary damage system is great, but the neut bonus manages to be in just the wrong spot: overwhelming and underwhelming at the exact same time.

The dragoon suffers much the same issue: it's great for picking up prey smaller than itself, but against any coordinated enemy, it is quickly dismantled. The difference is, there are a LOT of ships smaller than the Armageddon, and all of them are lunch to it (provided they're within the 38 km range.) But facing any larger enemy, the Armageddon lacks...well...lasers. It munches smaller ships, but is quickly eaten by anything it's own size, perhaps best comparable to the scorpion. Or typhoon. I don't know.

I hope my feedback has added something new. Good luck making the amarr fabulous!
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#557 - 2013-04-10 04:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
thought about the changes a bit longer. Here my 2 cents:
instead of changing the purpose of the Armageddon keep it as is. All three amarr BS have already different roles and are very well balanced. If you really want a neut T1 BS add a new hull in a later expansion. This Neut/Drone BS would now in the same line as a disruption BS like the caldari scorpion.

abbaddon: brick with lasers
apoc: long range BS
navy apoc: better apoc
geddon: more agile, less tanky version of the abbadon with more done capabilities
navy geddon: better geddon

future: something with neuts and drones in form of a new hull

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Wenthrial Solamar
Brand Newbros
Out of the Blue.
#558 - 2013-04-10 06:00:40 UTC
Up one side and down the other....

1. Abaddon: tank tweak, fine.

All the rest, I like the ideas, but truly they feel half baked, a first cut at something planned for winter expansion, not a plan ready to go live in 6 weeks. ( true in the other races as well )

The Apoc Changes, ok... I like the new bonus, but dedicating 3 or more slots/rigs to try and get cap stable is not really viable.
As it is now it has targeting range issue, why not address that.
It has fitting issues as a sniper, why not address that.
Reducing the tank on it just does not seem to fit with a range and tracking bonus, it's not a brawler, it's not a sniper... it's just a mongral with cap issues.

The 'Gedden change .... I like the idea, but it's not finished.
Drone boat , is good ... but you need you low slots to make it viable.
Cap warfare is good, but 37km range is not enough to reach a enemy fleet, might be ok if it was also to ET's since you could then be part of a reasonable cap chain.
Losing a slot in trade for what, drone bay ?
Used with MJD this might work, but a single fit should not be a central design of ship balance.
Adding missiles , meh. If I'm using Neut's I'm not fitting DPS at all, If I wanted a mission boat with Missiles and Drones I would get a Rattlesnake, if I wanted drones and guns I would get a Domi, this hull offers nothing that I can not already get, and be better at it.
Over all the design feels slapped together, like it was built by committee, or not an Amarr pilot, or both.
It fits with some of the recent changes, but only with a shoehorn and is really not ready for prime time.

If you want to make it a disruption BS then do that, give it focus;
40%/lvl Range bonus to Neut, Nos, and ET. , Make it reach out and touch someone, force it to be a sniper target, and give it a tank that reflects that ( ie. weak )
No Weapon system bonus, Cap warfare is it's weapon system.
Stay with the 5 Hardpoint change, heck, keep the added missile systems to stay in line with the other changes:
6High ( 5 Turret/5 Launcher )
Keep the 4mid's and give it a Utility, bonus, 7.5%/lvl to TD effectiveness
and leave the 8 lows alone.
And leave it with the current drone bay, so it can apply some DPS, but only has one flight.

I'm not sure I would love that ship, but I know what it does, and way I would want to fly it.

Please take some real time to consider what you are doing here, better to change nothing in June then to make a mess of it.
There are good ideas in this thread, go look at them, if this is what you give us in June, so be it, we will fly it and make it work, but this is very much not your A game.




Antimatter Launcher
ELVE Industries
#559 - 2013-04-10 06:13:42 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

Apocalypse:
Signature radius: 380(-20)

Armageddon:
Signature radius: 450 (+80)


not realistic.

new players will be confused if they compare the ship size with the signature..
Gordon Esil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#560 - 2013-04-10 06:21:43 UTC
And still no devs bothered to write a single letter on this
Looks like they are going to feed it to us anyways

Thanks CCP for the major awesome ships mess up